Skip to main content

Shepherd writeup

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

This document is a clarifying update to the base document, it is based on
errata submitted to the WG.

    1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of
       a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad

Broad agreement.

    2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions
       where the consensus was particularly rough?

No controversy, one person expressed dislike for the base document; however,
that was deemed out-of-scope as this is a simple clarifying document update.

    3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
       discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
       email messages to the responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
       separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)


    4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the
    contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential
    implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations
    reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3]
    recommends) or elsewhere (where)?

Implementations of the base document exist.

    ## Additional Reviews

    5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in
       other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it
       therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes,
       describe which reviews took place.


    6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review
       criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type

There are no MIB, YANG, media type or URI concerns with this document update.

    7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the
       module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for
       syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or
       warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time?
       Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore
       Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]?

Does not contain a YANG module.

    8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of
       the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as
       XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

None required.

    ## Document Shepherd Checks

    9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that
       this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed,
       and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes to all of these.

    10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
        reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been
        identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in
        subsequent reviews?


    11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream
        ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet
        Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is
        this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes
        correctly reflect this intent?

Proposed Standard. This is the same track as the base document this one updates.

    12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the
        intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in
        [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required
        disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any
        relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when


    13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
        listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front
        page is greater than five, please provide a justification.


    14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the
        [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines"
        on][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool
        generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

No outstanding or unexpected NITS.

    15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the
        [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].


    16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone.
        Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative

ISO 10589 - The IS-IS base standard document. Community had sufficient time to

    17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
        97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If
        so, list them.


    18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
        submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If so, what is the plan for their completion?


    19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
        RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and
        are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed
        in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the
        document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is

This will update and obsolete the existing base document.

    20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
        section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
        document. Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA
        assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA
        registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been
        clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry
        specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable
        name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

No changes in this area to review.

    21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
        future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
        Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No changes in this area to review.

    [1]: [2]: [3]: [4]: [5]: [6]: [7]: [8]: [9]: [10]: [11]: [12]: [13]: [14]: [15]: [16]: